7 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 193 (2011)

Meeting – Determined not to be a meeting: Quorum notpresent

May 23, 2011

Complainants: Respondent:Mr. Cornelius Ridgely Carroll County CommissionersMs. Judith Smith

We have considered the complaint of Mr. Cornelius Ridgely and Ms.Judith Smith, (“Complainants”) that the Board of County Commissioners ofCarroll County (“Commissioners”) violated the Open Meetings Act on March17 or 18, 2011 by communicating privately about public business. Weconclude that the Commissioners did not violate the Act, because it did notapply to the communications in question.

Complainants allege that the Commissioners communicated about certainState laws on redistricting committees, reviewed a certain proposal, and votedto recommend it, all either in a closed meeting or by e-mail or other means ofcirculating messages. The Commissioners, a five-member body, respond thatwhile they indeed conducted those activities outside of an open meeting, theydid so not in a meeting, but rather by separate e-mail messages, a call betweentheir president and one Commissioner, a conversation between the presidentand one Commissioner, and a message left with the Town Clerk for thepresident. The Commissioners attach various e-mails and relate the sequenceof events. Although the president states in one e-mail that he “[s]poke to” twoother commissioners, a reference that could suggest that a quorum of three hadmet, their narrative states that the president had spoken separately with eachof those commissioners. In short, at no time did more than twoCommissioners interact on this matter.

The Act applies only to meetings of a quorum of a public body to discusspublic business. See State Government Article (“SG”), §10-505 (providing,“a public body shall meet in open session”) and SG §10-502(g) (defining“meet” to mean “to convene a quorum of a public body for the considerationor transaction of public business”). While other laws might require a publicbody to conduct certain business in a public meeting, the Act does not; rather,it “simply sets rules that must be followed when a meeting subject to the Actoccurs.” 6 OMCB Opinions 57, 61 (2008). The Act is the sole source of ourauthority, SG §10-502.4, and we therefore may only address allegationsinvolving meetings within its definition of the term.

193

7 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 193 (2011) 194

Here, the alleged communications were not made in a “meeting” asdefined by the Act. In 1999, addressing a similar complaint about e-mailcommunications, we concluded that “an e-mail canvass of the members of apublic body does not involve the convening of a quorum.” 2 OMCB Opinions78, 78-79 (1999). And, in 1994, addressing a similar complaint about privateconversations between two members of a city council which consisted of morethan three members, we stated: “The Act was not applicable to whateverdiscussions may have occurred between any two members..., because noquorum was present at those discussions.” 1 OMCB Opinions 101, 102(1994). Here, there is no indication that more than two Commissionersattended any telephone, e-mail, or face-to-face discussion about theredistricting committee.

We conclude that the Board of County Commissioners of Carroll Countydid not violate the Open Meetings Act when their president communicatedwith each commissioner out of the presence of the others. As in 2 OMCBOpinions 49, 50 (1999), another case in which a public body discussed publicbusiness through a series of communications between the chair and eachmember, we reach this result because “the Act’s definition of ‘meeting’ couldhardly be more precise.” However, even though the seriatum contactsconcerning the matter did not constitute a “meeting,” we emphasize aconclusion reached by us in the past: that “this way of proceeding deprives thepublic of an opportunity to observe the real decision-making process, for asubsequent open meeting to ‘ratify’ the decision...is a mere formality.” Id.

We have no authority to address whether this conduct violated other lawsapplicable to this public body.

OPEN MEETINGS COMPLIANCE BOARD

Elizabeth L. Nilson, EsquireCourtney J. McKeldinJulio A. Morales, Esquire